Why Hitchcock Trashed Two of Hollywood's Biggest Epics

Alfred Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaking titan was so immense that few questioned him, even when he disparaged some of the most revered movies ever made. He wasn't just a top-tier director; his influence was so profound that the term “Hitchcockian” became a descriptor for other great works of suspense. Beyond his own timeless filmography, many modern directors credit Hitchcock as their primary inspiration for entering the movie business. This deep respect often stemmed from the way he openly discussed his methods for guiding viewer focus and building suspense, acting as a sort of mentor to film lovers everywhere.

A Different Kind of Challenge

One project he was especially proud of was The Birds, a movie that demanded incredible precision to orchestrate its harrowing avian attack sequences. While it may not be held in the same esteem as Vertigo or Rear Window, the film demonstrated Hitchcock's refusal to be constrained by conventional filmmaking rules. The industry typically shies away from the difficulties of working with animals, yet Hitchcock managed to create shockingly realistic scenes of bird flocks descending on their unsuspecting human prey.

What makes The Birds particularly noteworthy is that it achieved its terrifying effect without a massive budget, ultimately securing an Academy Award nomination for ‘Best Special Effects’. For Hitchcock, the ingenuity and hard work involved in designing such complex scenes represented a far greater accomplishment than just building enormous sets filled with hundreds of extras.

Spectacle Over Substance?

In Hitchcock's view, historical epics like Cleopatra and Ben-Hur required “just quantities of people and scenery,” and took “nothing” to create compared to the creative hurdles he overcame with The Birds. He believed that reconstructing ancient pyramids or dressing extras in Roman armor was a triumph of production design, not a display of true directorial skill.

While it's easy to paint Hitchcock as a grumpy old critic taking potshots at his peers, his argument for prioritizing creativity over cost wasn't without merit. In fact, Hollywood's obsession with pouring huge sums of money into historical dramas led to a string of costly box office flops in the late 1960s. This financial crisis created an opening for the innovative filmmakers of the “New Hollywood” movement to emerge.

One of those infamous financial disasters was, in fact, Cleopatra. Some films are remembered for their artistic achievements, while others are known for different reasons entirely. The production was notoriously chaotic and nearly drove 20th Century Fox into bankruptcy. Although it performed well with audiences and even earned a ‘Best Picture’ nomination, its staggering costs meant it never turned a profit.

A Case of Professional Envy?

Hitchcock’s disdain for Ben-Hur, however, might have been rooted more in jealousy than in genuine artistic disagreement. William Wyler's revolutionary epic is still celebrated as a landmark achievement in both scale and artistry. Despite relying on the kind of massive budget Hitchcock criticized, Ben-Hur was ahead of its time with its dynamic action sequences, most notably the legendary chariot race that serves as the film's climax.

The director's jabs at both Ben-Hur and Cleopatra could also be linked to their success at the Academy Awards. The “Master of Suspense” famously never won an Oscar for ‘Best Director’, even though his film Rebecca won for ‘Best Picture’. Ben-Hur made history by winning eleven Oscars, a record later matched only by Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. While Cleopatra didn't dominate the awards, it did take home the trophy for ‘Best Special Effects’—the very category in which The Birds was nominated. This loss may have been the catalyst for Hitchcock's one-sided rivalry.